The court validated the Family Court’s maintenance order after determining the credibility of the income claims, emphasizing evidence over unsubstantiated assertions.

ORDER

This revision petition has been filed challenging the order passed by the Family Court, Malappuram in M.C.No.98/2023 dated

7.7.2025.

2. The petitioner is the husband of the respondent.

The marriage is not in dispute. The petitioner claimed maintenance at the rate of ₹20,000/- per month. The Family Court granted maintenance at the rate of ₹15,000/- per month.

The said order is under challenge in this revision petition.

3. The definite case of the respondent is that, she does not have any job or income to support herself. Even though the petitioner has contended that the respondent is employed, no evidence has been adduced to substantiate the same. Admittedly, the petitioner is working in Saudi Arabia. According to the respondent, he is getting ₹1,00,000/- per month. The petitioner did not produce any document to prove his income. The evidence of the respondent coupled with Exts.P1 to P7 series would show that the respondent is suffering from cancer. Considering the illness of the respondent, her requirement and the means of the petitioner, the monthly maintenance of ₹15,000/- granted by the Family Court appears to be absolutely reasonable. I see no reason to interfere with the impugned order.

4. In fact this Court was not inclined to admit this revision petition. After hearing the revision petitioner, the revision petition was dismissed as per the order dated 2.12.2025. Thereafter, the learned counsel for the petitioner made a submission that the impugned order was passed without calling for the affidavit of assets and liabilities from the parties in violation of the direction given by the Supreme Court inRajnesh v. Neha & Another [(2021) 2 SCC 324] . Hence the order dated 2.12.2025 was recalled and the Registry was directed to call for the TCR urgently from the Family Court, Malappuram to ascertain whether the submission of the petitioner was true. The order was recalled based on the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner alone. It was specifically observed in the said order that if the submission of the petitioner is found to be false after perusing the records, the petitioner will have to pay the cost.

5. TCR has now been received. I have perused the records. A perusal of the records would show that the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner is not true. Both the petitioner as well as the respondent had filed the statement of assets and liabilities. Hence, the petitioner is directed to pay ₹5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) as cost before the Kerala State Mediation and Conciliation Centre, which shall be deposited by the petitioner within two weeks, failing which recovery proceedings shall be initiated against him in accordance with law.

RP(FC) is dismissed.